Skip to main content

Comparing Symbolic and Explicit Model Checking of a Software System

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Model Checking Software (SPIN 2002)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNCS,volume 2318))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

There are two main paradigms for model checking: symbolic model checking, as is performed by the tool RuleBase, and explicit state model checking, as is performed by Spin. It is often accepted that the former is better for verifying hardware systems, while the latter has advantages for verifying software. We examine this piece of common wisdom in light of experience in verifying the software of a disk controller using both symbolic and explicit state model checking.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. J. Baumgartner, T. Heyman, V. Singhal, and A. Aziz. Model checking the IBM Gigahertz Processor: An abstraction algorithm for high-performance netlists. In Proc. 11 th International Conference on Computer Aided Verification (CAV), LNCS 1633, pages 72–83. Springer-Verlag, 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  2. I. Beer, S. Ben-David, C. Eisner, D. Fisman, A. Gringauze, and Y. Rodeh. The temporal logic Sugar. In G. Berry, H. Comon, and A. Finkel, editors, Proc. 13 th International Conference on Computer Aided Verification (CAV), LNCS 2102. Springer-Verlag, 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  3. I. Beer, S. Ben-David, C. Eisner, D. Geist, L. Gluhovsky, T. Heyman, A. Landver, P. Paanah, Y. Rodeh, G. Ronin, and Y. Wolfsthal. RuleBase: Model checking at IBM. In Proc. 9 th International Conference on Computer Aided Verification (CAV), LNCS 1254. Springer-Verlag, 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  4. I. Beer, S. Ben-David, C. Eisner, and A. Landver. RuleBase: an industry-oriented formal verification tool. In Proc. 33 rd Design Automation Conference (DAC), pages 655–660. Association for Computing Machinery, Inc., June 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  5. I. Beer, S. Ben-David, C. Eisner, and Y. Rodeh. Efficient detection of vacuity in temporal model checking. Formal Methods in System Design, 18(2), 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  6. I. Beer, S. Ben-David, and A. Landver. On-the-fly model checking of RCTL formulas. In Proc. 10 th International Conference on Computer Aided Verification (CAV), LNCS 1427, pages 184–194. Springer-Verlag, 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  7. R. Bryant. Graph-based algorithms for boolean function manipulation. IEEE Transactions on Computers, C-35(8), 1986.

    Google Scholar 

  8. E. Clarke, O. Grumberg, and D. Peled. Model Checking. MIT Press, 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  9. C. Eisner. Model checking the garbage collection mechanism of SMV. In S. D. Stoller and W. Visser, editors, Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science, volume 55. Elsevier Science Publishers, 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  10. D. Geist and I. Beer. Efficient model checking by automated ordering of transition relation partitions. In Proc. 6 th International Conference on Computer Aided Verification (CAV), LNCS 818, pages 299–310. Springer-Verlag, 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  11. G. Holzmann. On the fly, ltl model checking with spin: Simple spin manual. In http://cm.bell-labs.com/cm/cs/what/spin/Man/Manual.html.

  12. G. Holzmann. Design and Validation of Computer Protocols. Prentice Hall, 1991.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Z. Manna and A. Pnueli. Temporal Verification of Reactive Systems: Safety. Springer-Verlag, New York, 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  14. K. McMillan. Symbolic Model Checking. Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  15. K. Ravi, K. McMillan, T. Shiple, and F. Somenzi. Approximation and decomposition of binary decision diagrams. In Proc. 35 th Design Automation Conference (DAC). Association for Computing Machinery, Inc., June 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  16. K. Ravi and F. Somenzi. Hints to accelerate symbolic traversal. In Proceedings 10th IFIP WG 10.5 Advanced Research Working Conference on Correct Hardware Design and Verification Methods (CHARME), LNCS 1703, Bad Herrenalb, Germany, September 1999. Springer-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  17. O. Shtrichman. Pruning techniques for the SAT-based bounded model checking problem. In T. Margaria and T. F. Melham, editors, CHARME, volume 2144 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer, 2001.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2002 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Eisner, C., Peled, D. (2002). Comparing Symbolic and Explicit Model Checking of a Software System. In: Bošnački, D., Leue, S. (eds) Model Checking Software. SPIN 2002. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 2318. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-46017-9_18

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-46017-9_18

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-43477-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-46017-6

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics